Gary Marcus

Rank 18 of 47
|
Score 89
12/21/2024, 12:13:07 AM
X
In reply to:
Garrett of DeepwriterAI
@DeepwriterAI
·
5d
@GaryMarcus @brhydon You didn't but somebody did
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
5d
@DeepwriterAI @brhydon nobody said “no progress has been made”
Garrett of DeepwriterAI
@DeepwriterAI
·
5d
@brhydon @GaryMarcus This is why we have such cognitive dissonance rn. We have the claim that agi is here and that no progress has been made. Both are wrong. But i tend to appreciate those who go against the hype and crowds as being more minable for uncommon insights.
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
5d
@GaryMarcus From my reading this is a substantial update to your point 5. Ofc this isn't a whole picture, but certainly it seems bad faith to not call this a major progress upon that axis towards AGI? And demonstrably the largest update along that axis an LLM has taken
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
5d
@brhydon i didn’t personally hitch myself to that wagon. you can see my criteria here: https://garymarcus.substack.com/…
Brydon Eastman
@brhydon
·
5d
@GaryMarcus Research is a winding road and some unexpected paths can spring out of no where and prove to bear incredible fruit.

Standards have only fallen if you're centred primarily around products. Centering oneself around progress is far more rewarding.

The statement engages in a public discourse about the progress in artificial general intelligence (AGI) development. It challenges the claim that no progress has been made, suggesting that such a claim is unfounded. The tone is assertive but not hostile, aiming to correct a perceived misconception.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and seeks to clarify a misunderstanding, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By addressing a misconception, the statement promotes understanding and encourages a more accurate view of AGI progress. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive dialogue by disagreeing with a claim without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]